Second Court of Appeals | Case November

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of November 09, 2009

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Hill v. State, No. 02-08-00178-CR (Nov. 12, 2009) (Meier, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: After stopping Appellant for a traffic violation, the officers had reasonable suspicion to continue to detain Appellant to investigate whether he was engaged in, or would soon engage in, criminal activity. During the stop, the officers seized crack cocaine in plain view. The officers were then authorized to arrest Appellant because they had probable cause to believe he had committed an offense within their view. After arresting Appellant, the officers were justified in conducting a warrantless search of his vehicle because they had probable cause to believe that there was contraband located somewhere inside the vehicle. The officers were also justified in conducting their search pursuant to Arizona v. Gant, because they reasonably believed that additional evidence relating to the offense would be found in his vehicle.

City of Fort Worth v. Robinson, No. 02-09-00075-CV (Nov. 12, 2009) (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Meier, J.).: Held: The trial court erred by denying the City of Fort Worth’s plea to the jurisdiction. In this arrest-injury case, the City met its burden of proving its employee’s good faith by offering evidence that a reasonably prudent officer, under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed the officer’s conduct was justified based on the information the officer possessed when the conduct occurred. Robinson failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that no reasonable officer could have believed the facts justified the conduct. The City therefore conclusively established its employee’s official immunity from suit, thereby establishing the City’s governmental immunity.

Alexander v. State, No. 02-08-00282-CR (Nov. 12, 2009) (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: In this Anders appeal, the trial court’s judgment is reformed to delete the language requiring Alexander to pay restitution because, although included in the trial court’s written judgment adjudicating Alexander’s guilt based on a violation of community supervision, the restitution order was not included in the trial court’s oral pronouncement of Alexander’s sentence. Except for this necessary modification to the judgment, this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; nothing else in the record arguably might support an appeal.

In re Craven, No. 02-09-00243-CV (Nov.13, 2009) (Gardner, J., joined by Meier, J.; Walker, J., concurs with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]: Held: Relator sought credit for time served between arrest and sentencing in a state jail felony case. Requested relief denied.; Concurrence: The application of code of criminal procedure article 42.12, section 15(h) to vest a trial court with discretion to deny a defendant’s request for credit for time served between arrest and sentencing when the defendant has been convicted of a state jail felony and is sentenced directly to imprisonment in a state jail facility, rather than placed on community supervision, carves out a nonsensical exception to article 42.03, section 2(a)(1)’s mandatory credit for pre-sentencing time served that is required in “all criminal cases.” In light of the case law from other courts of appeals, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not awarding Craven credit for the time he served between his arrest and sentencing.